Allowed

Tmt.S.Bhakkiam v. the Superintending of Engineer

Madras HC19 Aug 2014WP/24715/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed the respondent's order rejecting an application for compassionate appointment. Holding that a subsequent rejection based on lateness is impermissible when an earlier application was bona fide and received, the Court directed the respondent to furnish appointment to the petitioner's son within twelve weeks, subject to no other impediment.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; Respondent directed to provide compassionate appointment to petitioner's son within twelve weeks.

Tmt.S.Bhakkiam Vs the Superintending of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 19.08.2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

¶5

W.P.NO.24715 OF 2012

¶6

S.Bhakkiam .. Petitioner Versus

¶7

The Superintending of Engineer Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Purchase & Administration Mettur Thermal Power Station Mettur Dam – 636 406. .. Respondent

¶8

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the order of rejection in Letter No.03788/Ni.P.3/Ko.Thani/2012 dated 17.05.2012 on the file of the respondent quash the same and direct the respondent to provide suitable employment to the son of the petitioner by name S.Pratap under compassionate appointment.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Doraisamy For Respondent : Mr.P.R.Dhilipkumar

¶10

Heard both sides.

¶11

2.The petitioner is the wife of the deceased employee, who was employed as Helper in the respondent Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation (shortly “TANGEDCO”). He died on 17.04.2006, while he was in service, leaving behind him the petitioner herein, three sons and two daughters, besides his mother, as his legal representatives.

¶12

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶13

3.It is not in dispute that the petitioner made an application dated 11.03.2008 seeking compassionate appointment. The letter dated 29.03.2008 sent by the respondent to the petitioner refers to the petitioner's representation dated 11.03.2008 seeking compassionate appointment. In the said letter dated 29.03.2008, the respondent directed the petitioner to submit the application in proper format. According to the petitioner, the same was also submitted.

¶14

4.Since no order was passed giving compassionate appointment, the petitioner made another representation dated 28.03.2012 to provide compassionate appointment to her son. However, the respondent passed the impugned order dated 17.05.2012 stating that the application of the petitioner was belated, as the same was made beyond the period of three years.

¶15

5.The petitioner has filed this writ petition to quash the aforesaid order dated 17.05.2012 of the respondent and sought for a direction to the respondent to provide compassionate appointment to her son.

¶16

6.Counter affidavit is filed by the respondent refuting the allegations made by the petitioner in the writ petition.

¶17

7.In the counter affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner should have made application for compassionate appointment within a period of three years from the date of death of an employee as per BP MS (FB) No.46 (Adm. Branch) dated 13.10.1995. It is further stated that the three years period expired on 16.04.2009, but the petitioner sent representation for compassionate appointment only on 28.03.2012 and hence, the same was rejected.

¶18

8.I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶19

9.The respondent has not denied about the earlier application dated 11.03.2008 made by the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment, particularly when an assertion is made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. Furthermore, the letter dated 29.03.2008 of the respondent addressed to the petitioner enclosed at page no.5 of the typed set also refers to the petitioner's representation dated 11.03.2008 seeking compassionate appointment. Hence, I am of the view that the impugned order passed by the respondent refusing to consider the son of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on the ground that the application was made belatedly is illegal and the same was passed without application of mind. It is a different matter if the petitioner did not make any application within the stipulated period. Therefore, any subsequent

¶20

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶21

application by the dependents of the deceased employee seeking compassionate appointment cannot be rejected on the ground that it was belated, without taking into account the first application seeking compassionate appointment.

¶22

10.In fact, I have considered the similar issue in W.P.No.17854 of 2012 dated 29.04.2014 and my judgment is based on the judgment of this Court in J.JEBA MARY VS. THE CHAIRMAN, TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD [2011 (3) LLN 405 (Mad.)].

¶23

11.In view of the judgment of this Court in J.JEBA MARY VS. THE CHAIRMAN, TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD [2011 (3) LLN 405 (Mad.)] as well as the order dated 29.04.2014 in W.P.No.17854 of 2012, I am of the view that the impugned order is liable to be quashed.

¶24

12.Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and the respondent is directed to provide compassionate appointment to the son of the petitioner, if there is no other impediment, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶25

13.The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. No costs. Sd/Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar TK To

¶26

The Superintending of Engineer Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Purchase & Administration Mettur Thermal Power Station Mettur Dam – 636 406.

¶27

W.P.NO.24715 OF 2012 ug(co) pmk.21.8.2014

¶28

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Tmt.S.Bhakkiam v. the Superintending of Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tmt.S.Bhakkiam v. the Superintending of Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.Chinnakannu Vs the Deputy Executive Officer

A.R.Muthu Saravanan Vs the State of Tamilnadu

R.Sundari Vs the Director

Dr.G.Korakumari Vs State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by

Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Vs the Chairman & Managing

Tasmac Sumai Thookkum Vs the Managing Director